• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Video: Officer Tases Partner Youtube - Question.

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Hi guys,

I've been discussing the actions in the now infamous 'Officer Tases Partner' video on Youtube.

Now we just see a short snippet from the POV of the officers lapel cam, but they go up to a couple sitting in a car, start questioning them, and saying things like "I'm going to count to three and you better show me your ID...".

IOW, really childish stuff and I don't think any of it is legal.

They end up dragging the -PASSENGER- out of the car which, it appears to me, was parked out in front of their house, tasing him and the cop's own partner.

They charged him with three things, which seem utterly ridiculous and it appears they scoured the books to come up with two of these.

1. He was charged with OOB, Obstructing Official Business. Again, he was a passenger in a parked car, and was just sitting there, not moving, not really talking (which is his right, AFAIK). I thought that any OOB charge was for a completely different situation, such as physically obstructing a cop from going into a restaurant you own to investigate a crime. I can't imagine it used often or EVER used to charge a non-resisting person sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car in broad daylight.

2. Failure to produce ID. Now, this person was not walking, driving, disturbing the peace, not in a dark parking lot, so there was no articulable suspicion of a crime being committed or about to be committed. Apparently the female who was sitting in the driver's seat (IDK if she was driving) was arguing with the guy and the girl's mother called the cops, but the cops did not witness anything, which I thought was required in a misdemeanor or hearsay. If she was driving what is the law for pulling her over, absent a traffic violation?

3. Resisting arrest. The guy was not 'cooperating' or obeying a, in my opinion, not legal command to get out of the car or produce ID as a passenger in a parked car, but he was not fighting the cop, or trying not to be cuffed. He just wasn't talking or moving.

Now, there may have been other things going on, I don't know. But are we now in a country where a cop can get a phone call, go up to a random parked car he THINKS is their 'guy' and demand ID, count to three, and then drag the guy out and tase him and make ridiculous charges, because having to wear lapel cams can't lie and say 'disorderly conduct'?

Here is the video. The vid starts with the cop saying to the passenger in the parked car (I don't know if they were driving and got pulled over, which makes a bit more difference, but again the guy was a passenger) and the cop, if there was a law he was citing, would just have arrested him immediately and not argued or 'counted to three' as though he was the guy's father, lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8iDmeDcSeE

Thanks!
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
They were investigating a domestic dispute according to the video title.

They could have the right to demand that the person identifies themselves. The Ohio ref below.



OHIO statue

2921.29 Failure to disclose personal information.

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person's name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

(2) The person witnessed any of the following:

(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;

(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;

(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;

(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.


(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to disclose one's personal information, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(C) Nothing in this section requires a person to answer any questions beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth. Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed.

(D) It is not a violation of this section to refuse to answer a question that would reveal a person's age or date of birth if age is an element of the crime that the person is suspected of committing.

Effective Date: 04-14-2006.
 
Last edited:

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
So Maverick9

Would you explain how you would have handled this situation.

The problem with posting a short incomplete story line, is not all the facts are know and judgment calls based on the incomplete story are almost always wrong.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
So, instead of trying to answer the procedural questions, everyone says -I- posted an incomplete video.

A) that was all that was available at the time.
B) I didn't post the video, and the SITE was not an official LE site. It just had a name similar to an official site. Just because some yt-uber says something doesn't make it legal, true, valid, pertinent.

Someone asked how I would have handled it. If I had legal parity, i.e. I was a judge, a lawyer, a cop above those guy's pay grade, I would have just 'dismissed' them. They would not have tried to harass anyone who knew the law, who was capable of bringing them to account for their actions, someone they couldn't threaten, nor lie to about their procedures or powers.

If I were the cops and I knew this person to be tied by some articulable fact to a domestic abuse, or DV case by way of evidence, and not hearsay from a third party, I would have gotten a sargeant to the scene after stopping the car, and he would have had links to the city atty, his superiors, whatever, and then they'd have removed the driver safely, and if a danger, or a person known to have committed a crime above a suspicion, or a misdemeanor, I'd have written him a summons to appear via a ticket and left.

He would have had his day in court, the county/city/victim would have sworn out a complaint and it would not have involved any unprofessional behavior, or fishing or assault and battery causing the city to risk being sued, especially in the current climate.

Everyone would have gone home safely, maybe by taxi, since the driver would have been escorted to safety, and there would have been justice possible and no drama and no injury to the partner.

I'm sure you lovely people, full of your bias or conceit of hubris or just plain wonderment would have done something similar, because, well you're reasonable and polite and patient and law abiding.

Thanks for your "input".
 

wabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
153
Location
briar patch, NM
So, instead of trying to answer the procedural questions, everyone says -I- posted an incomplete video.

A) that was all that was available at the time.
B) I didn't post the video, and the SITE was not an official LE site. It just had a name similar to an official site. Just because some yt-uber says something doesn't make it legal, true, valid, pertinent.

Someone asked how I would have handled it. If I had legal parity, i.e. I was a judge, a lawyer, a cop above those guy's pay grade, I would have just 'dismissed' them. They would not have tried to harass anyone who knew the law, who was capable of bringing them to account for their actions, someone they couldn't threaten, nor lie to about their procedures or powers.

If I were the cops and I knew this person to be tied by some articulable fact to a domestic abuse, or DV case by way of evidence, and not hearsay from a third party, I would have gotten a sargeant to the scene after stopping the car, and he would have had links to the city atty, his superiors, whatever, and then they'd have removed the driver safely, and if a danger, or a person known to have committed a crime above a suspicion, or a misdemeanor, I'd have written him a summons to appear via a ticket and left.

He would have had his day in court, the county/city/victim would have sworn out a complaint and it would not have involved any unprofessional behavior, or fishing or assault and battery causing the city to risk being sued, especially in the current climate.

Everyone would have gone home safely, maybe by taxi, since the driver would have been escorted to safety, and there would have been justice possible and no drama and no injury to the partner.

I'm sure you lovely people, full of your bias or conceit of hubris or just plain wonderment would have done something similar, because, well you're reasonable and polite and patient and law abiding.

Thanks for your "input".

sigh, sorry your whine of the complete video regarding the incident wasn't available is bogus Maverick9!

you picked a video from 'police center' released the 28th of November... you posted the vid to the OCDO forum on the 30th of November!

later on the 30th you got called out by some members for posting an incomplete representation of the incident and lo and behold, later during the 30th I posted a national news media video released by the station on the 29th.

therefore, you have nothing to whine about since you failed to exercise due diligence to assure you presented appropriate information, as such there is no way members anybody will believe your woe-is-me tirade you were unable to post the appropriate video on the riverside incident because it wasn't available when you initially posted.

as for requesting supervisory personnel you will notice the nice female LE SGT showing up asking what 'bleep' is going on.

glad you appreciated our "input"
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Now that I have seen the video and it's Riverside, Ohio police, I question their validity for reasonable suspicion. This police department hires from the bottom of the barrel.

Back in 2012, Riverside paid an open carrier $25 grand for harassment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siAqelKBUAA
Buy the way, the video warning is bull. And this organization knows it. P/S I have a copy of the original video. And this case is posted on OCDO.
 

wabbit

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
153
Location
briar patch, NM
Is this really the type of discussions you gentlemen(?) have on this forum.... JEESH--- just stop the bickering!

Freedom...yes there are times when members have clarification discussions regarding the validity of information/media member(s) report on threads as the honest to goodness truths about different subjects! as such, other data is presented by members to clarify, quantify, substantiate, or refute the presented data or to assure forum protocols, for example, cite legal references are met. fortunately, we do not carry the disagreements to the extreme like our founding fathers did, disagreements ending in honor duels.
 
Top